Rank Pay: The conspirators of deceit and cheating need to be identified

Repost
Dear Friends,
We had the pleasure of meeting the Hon'ble Raksha Mantri on 29 Sep with regard to the latest announcement on OROP.
Brig Bhagwan Singh, Air Cmde Sushil Soni, Col Raj Singla, Lt Nar Singh Dass and Capt Mangal Singh were part of my Delegation.
The exchange of pleasantries were followed by the submissions we had gone to make. Before we however got down to talk about the problems, we presented the RM with a Memento commemorating the 30th Anniversary of our Association.
To begin with we presented him with a paper about the recent award prepared by our team led by Lt Nar Singh Dass, our Gen Secy on Pensionary Matters. This dealt with what we got as a result of this announcement in real terms. (Paper follows). This was prepared with whatever little information we had. We welcome comments from all of you on what we have stated so that the entire paper can be corrected to give as true a picture as possible.
We apprised him that what has been given is no where near OROP and it all tantamounted to bureaucracy cheating us the Veterans and misleading the leadership. He agreed that what has been given is not OROP but assured that they have given this much for now. More will follow.
We then submitted that the recent Koshyari Committee had worked out the expenditure of Rs 1300.00 crores for grant of full OROP. The Cabinet Secy's Committee has not even given 25 % of what OROP signifies and has announced the sanction of Rs 2300.00 crores, almost twice the amount required for meeting this one single most important demand of OROP for the last 31 years.
With this one stroke, not only they achieved their aim of denying us our rightful dues but also conveying to the leadership how generous they are, as against our demand of Rs 1300.00, they have sanctioned 2300.00 crores. Indirectly also conveying to the leadership how ungrateful and greedy we the veterans are that an amount of Rs 2300.00 crores also does not make us feel grateful to the Gov't and satisfied. We also submitted what we feel may have been done to bloat this figure.
Bureaucracy has been misleading the leadership for over 15 years on Rank Pay which the Fourth CPC had granted and very proudly denied to the Veterans by the bureaucracy. Recently the Govt lost that case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the Govt to pay the dues amounting to Rs 1600.00 crores within three months with interest. This being the Supreme Courts final order has to be carried out. We submitted that obviously, the bureaucracy has clubbed this amount of Rs 1600.00 crores with another Rs 700,00 crores of the total amount of Rs 1300.00 crores required for OROP and made it Rs 2300.00 crores.
We then appealed to him to please have the matter investigated. Any body found guilty of misleading the leadership should be punished. We further appealed that the Gov't should also take appropriate action to find out the persons who were responsible for the sufferings of the veterans in Rank Pay case. Once they are identified they should not only be proceeded against but also made to pay the interest amount to the affected veterans. I am glad to say that The Raksha Mantri gave us a very patient hearing and we expect that the more to follow comes up fast.
Lt Col Inderjit Singh
Chairman
Related Reading
The Conspiracy against Indian Army!
Advise from Maj AK Dhanapalan- Role of the Service HQs?
Comment: It is evident that General K Sundarji (CAOS 1986 to 1988) was totally misled by his stooges in AHQ- The AG's branch shares in this conspiracy to cheat the Military- we need to identify them too.

Tatra Trucks haunts MOD

Problem in upkeep of Tatra trucks: Defence ministry
PTI | Sep 27, 2012, 05.42PM IST
NEW DELHI: With procurement of Tatra trucks put on hold, the defence ministry is facing problems in maintenance of over 7,000 of these vehicles in the armed forces and is likely to seek advice from the law ministry in this regard.
The ministry is likely to seek the opinion of the law ministry on how it should go about the maintenance of Tatra trucks as supply of all-terrain vehicles from the UK-based company has been put on hold because of a CBI probe into alleged irregularities in their purchase, sources told .
After getting the view of the law ministry, a final decision on the issue may be taken by the ministry's Defence Acquisition Council, they said here.
The issue of maintenance of these trucks is a key area for the armed forces as high-value assets such as strategic missiles and other heavy weapon systems are based on these vehicles.
After then Army Chief Gen V K Singh levelled bribery allegations in connection with procurement of Tatra trucks, defence minister A K Antony had ordered a CBI probe in the case.
Procurement of trucks from Tatra were put on hold after that and CBI has questioned several officials including the head of Tatra Vectra in this regard.
The defence ministry is also in the process of cancelling an order, placed after CBI began its probe, for one Tatra truck worth over Rs 50 lakh for meeting a DRDO requirement in May.
The chairman of BEML, which was supplying these trucks in India in partnership with Tatra, has been suspended by the ministry for ensuring a free and fair probe into the charges.
Problem in upkeep of Tatra trucks: Defence ministry
Defence Ministry to cancel DRDO's Tatra truck order
Comment: Tatra scam is akin to Bofors... the real culprits will remain free and scapegoats will be investigated by CBI... conviction rate a poor zero!

Rank Pay: Landmark Judgement exposes MOD's immodesty

Unhelpful attitude against military
Tuesday, September 18, 2012, Chandigarh, India
Apex court comes to the aid of defence personnel
by Lt-Gen Harwant Singh (retd)
ON September 4, 2012 the Supreme Court gave a landmark judgment, which goes against the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The 4th Central Pay Commission (CPC) gave defence services’ officers up to the rank of brigadier rank pay in addition to the basic pay. The MoD, working in consultation with the CDA (O) and in a most arbitrary manner and without any authority, deducted the rank pay from the emoluments of thousands of the effected officers. That was in the year 1986. From then onwards all efforts to get the MoD to undo this gross injustice have been opposed by it. In this machination and subsequent cussedness have been involved the top bureaucrats in the MoD and successive Defence Ministers. From 1986 till now, a large number of defence services’ officers have died, some during the Kargil war, without getting their rightful dues.
A gutsy Major from the South fought it out in the Kerala High Court. Not willing to relent on its mischief, the MoD went in for a review petition, which too was rejected by the Supreme Court. It took the officer over a decade to get this injustice undone. This was followed by innumerable appeals in most high courts of the country by the officers who had been denied their rank pay. The Supreme Court in its wisdom ordered that all these be clubbed and brought before it. A spirited group called the Retired Defence Officers Association (RODA) obtained a favourable order from the Supreme Court on March 8, 2010. Thereafter, the MoD sought recall of the Supreme Court order. Then on subsequent 10 occasions the Solicitor-General of India sought adjournments, stretching the case to September 2012.
The Solicitor-General told the highest court of the land that the defence services headquarters too were opposed to giving back the rank pay to these officers. However, the defence headquarters gave in writing to the Attorney-General that they did not oppose the grant of rank pay and, on the other hand, fully supported the case of these officers. This letter from the defence headquarters falsified the position of the Solicitor-General and, in fact, he stands exposed for an act of perjury. Consequently, the MoD, throwing all norms of fair play to the winds and in a brazen manner, tried to “arm-twist” the defence services headquarters in asking it to withdraw this letter to the Solicitor-General, which the defence services headquaters declined to do.
The Solicitor-General, as a last ditch attempt, pleaded that the restoration of rank pay be ordered to only those officers whose cases are before the court. Ignoring this mischievous plea, the Supreme Court, on September 4, 2012, ordered that all the effected officers (their number is in thousands) should be paid their dues starting from 1986 to now and taking a lenient view of the MoD’s plea of financial constraints made by the Solicitor-General, reduced the period of interest, which starts from 2006 instead of 1986, and at 6 per cent interest.
The Fifth CPC took away the “running pay band,” which, on the hints of resignation by the three service chiefs, was granted by the Fourth CPC and was introduced to somewhat compensate for extremely limited promotions. In the case of the Sixth CPC, there are 39 anomalies that are still to be resolved. The grant of bounty of Non-Functional Advancement to all Central services officers by the Sixth CPC and denying the same to the defence services officers is not only scandalous but also blatant display of bias against them.
Instead of extending a supporting hand to the defence services, the MoD has in almost every case related to pay and allowances and the status of defence personnel been taking an adversial stance. In the case of the Second Central Pay Commission, (CPC), the MoD fielded the case of pay and allowances of defence personnel “as given”. In the case of the Third CPC, the defence services were not permitted to present their case before the Pay Commission on the specious grounds that the same will adversely effect their discipline! While the absurdity of this stance by the MoD is detestable, the fact that this arrangement was accepted by the services chiefs is equally distressing. In the subsequent CPCs, the defence services could get no support from the MoD and on the other hand its despicable act of illegally depriving the officers of their rank pay in the case of the fourth CPC needs no further elaboration.
The MoD’s stance has always been unhelpful to the military. Such a sustained attitude of the MoD has created deep fissures in its relationship with the military. There is palpable mistrust of the ministry among the armed forces. The adverse fallout of this relationship, at one level, relates to national security, and at another it impacts on the military’s commitment and motivation. The Ministry of Home Affairs fights tooth and nail to promote the interests of, say, the Central Police Organizations ( CPOs-inappropriately called para-military). As opposed to this, the MoD operates in a motivated manner against those of the military. This adversial stance of the MoD has become so visible in that the CPOs, in pay and allowances, are far better placed than the military. These policemen, unlike soldiers who retire at 35 years of age, retire at the age of 60 and further end up getting much higher pension, etc.
This attitude of the MoD towards the defence services has created a climate of mistrust, animosity and disharmony between these two major components of the government. This hiatus has had adverse effect on the pace of modernisation of the military as well.
The Supreme Court judgment of September 4, ordering the government to pay up the amount due to the affected officers starting with 1986, needs to be taken to its logical end by bringing to account all those officers who were responsible for this mischief, including those who have since retired, and ones who have continued to follow the same line. It is time some accountability was jacked into the government functioning, and those who function in an arbitrary and irresponsible manner are hauled over the coals
. The writer is a retired Deputy Chief of Army Staff.
Unhelpful attitude against military

Army Pay Scales: Genesis of the continuing Downgrade

Sixth CPC Report:(vii) Army Pay Scales (1)
Chapter 2.3 of the Report briefly recaptures the historical developments in reference to determination of pay structure for the Armed Forces, starting from constitution of the Post War Pay Committee in 1947 which for the first time attempted to establish relative parameters in reference to Indian Police Service (IPS) and the Central Class I Services but also brought down the pay scales of many Indian Commissioned Officers. The Government subsequently modified pay structure for Armed Forces in 1960 when the Raghuramaiya Committee endorssed the concept of parity with the above referred services as conceived earlier.
The pay structure for Army was for the first time referred to Central Pay Commission (CPC) at the time of Third CPC which recommended merger of the Special Disturbance Allowance (being paid to army personnel since 1950 as a temporary compensatory measure) with the pay, there by making the pay structure for Army slightly better than civilian pay scales. The Fourth CPC accepted the demand for running pay bands and rank pay up to the scale of Brigadier, but the structure was subsequently realtered by Fifth CPC which gave scales on pattern of civilian establishment to the Armed Forces with a slight edge due to difficult working conditions. The recommendations of Fifth CPC which form the basis for existing pay structure are reflected below.

The Sixth CPC has recmmended restoration of Running Pay Bands on the ground that similar structure is now recommended for Civil Services and the possibility of disparity on that account is ruled out. Another important benefit is that this measure would facilitate smoother absorption of ths Short Service Commission Officers (SSCOs) and Personnel below Officer’ Ranks (PBORs) in Central Paramilitary Forces (CPMFs) by identification of analogous posts in the two structures (eg Major and Deputy Commandant in Army and CRPF). It has however added a new component to the salary of armymen under the title of Military Service Pay(MSP) which would be admissible to all ranks upto Brigadier.
The Commission foresees that the MSP shall ensure that the edge enjoyed by the army pay structure vis a vis the pay scales for civilian employees continues. MSP shall be counted as pay for all practical purposes. Although MSP shall not be admissible beyond the rank of Brigadier yet the edge provided by MSP shall continue at subsequent stages since it would be embedded in the pay at subsequent fitment stage. However for purposes of determination of comparative seniority the indicator shall be the grade pay. MSP being a new addition to pay, arrears would not be payable for the past. The Pay Structure as recommended by Sixth CPC is as follows.

Some other major recommendations relate to upgradtion of Scale of pay admissible to Director General of Armed Forces Medical Service to Rs.80000/-(fixed) and the decision to allow the non functional scale of Army Commander to Lt. Generals who do not get the post due to age bar. Similar benefit has been recommended for ofiicers of other ranks who are similarily deprived of promotion due to shortage of tenure. Commsision has however not agreed to increase the scales for Principal Staff Officers posted at Army HQs on the ground that this would affect the relativity with Corps Commanders operating in the field.
Commission has also recommended continuation of existing higher entry grade pay to Lieutant in Army Medical Corps (AMC) as compared to Lieutant in the Army. Higher pay to the extent of 7.5% for Lieutant and 10% for the Captain has been recommened. Regarding Military Nursing Services (MNS) the recommendation is for maintainig parity with the Service cadre Officers. Extension of time bound promotion scheme upto level of Lt. Col. has been recommended for the Officers of MNS and MSP to the extent of Rs.4200/- has also been recommended alongwith benefit of one pay fixation increment at the stage of promotion .The Pay Scales recommended for MNS are given below.

Sixth CPC Report:(vii) Army Pay Scales (1)
Related Reading: Pay scales of the Indian Armed Forces: Click here
Comment: In spite of the slide down of Military Pay Scales, why has the Rank Pay been denied for the last 26 years? This may require a detailed analysis to fix responsibility. The COAS from 1986 till 2008 are equally responsible. Military is apolitical does this mean they are dummies and should kowtow the corrupt system? The seniors on whom one reposes faith are the ones who let down the organisation for their own perks and salaries- own selfish interest. The AHQ is filled with such scumbags- imagine the Army Chief being posted in AHQ for the 12th time! His interests ly elsewhere not welfare of troops. Damn Chetwode Motto!

Does the Army Chief have power and will to redress grieviances of Veterans?

Addressing ex-servicemen's issues is top priority: Army Chief PTI | 07:07 PM,Jul 01,2012
Pathankot, Jul 1 (PTI) Listing the welfare of ex-servicemen and war widows as his top priority, Army Chief Gen Bikram Singh today said the issue of one-rank-one-pension is being looked at the ministerial level and the Army is geared up for speedy redressal of their grievances. "The government and the Army are sensitive to their needs and would take every step to ensure that ex-servicemen and their families are looked after well, the Army Chief said here, addressing an ex-servicemen's rally organised here on the occasion of celebrations of Golden Jubilee of 21 Sub Area. He assured the ex-servicemen that all their complaints routed to district Sainik Welfare Boards and area commanders will be attended. Meanwhile, a wife of a mentally-challenged ex-servicemen shouted during the function complaining that she had not been given regular job despite her repeated plea to the authorities. "My husband, an ex-serviceman is mentally challenged. I had been applying for regular job for the last 8 years, but every time I submitted my file, it was thrown in dustbin by authorities concerned at 21 sub Area," shouted Sharda Pathania while Gen Singh was taking round to hear the complainants. Earlier, Gen Singh accompanied by his wife visited Rising Star Corps at Yol near Dharamsala to review the operational preparedness of the Corps.
ex-servicemen's issues is top priority: Army Chief
Comment: Complaints routed through the Sainik Welfare Boards get dumped, as the civilan personnel manning these basic state run clerical units are clueless as to how the grieviances are to be tackled and resolved. There is total dearth of knowledge or information on the current welfare measures. The civilains are employed for their own career prospects and not knowing what their job content is. It is really a sad state of affairs. No Chief can ever resolve this monsterous organistion which exists in shoddy offices tailor made to churn out more paper work and heap of files rather than addressing the issue for which they are employed. These organisations need to be disbanded totally and save the tax payers money.

Army Chief overturns Gen V K Singh's decision

Friday 08 June, 2012.
Army Chief overturns Gen V K Singh's decision
Overturning the decision of his predecessor Gen V K Singh, Army Chief Gen Bikram Singh has lifted the ban on promotion of Lt Gen Dalbir Singh Suhag clearing the way for his appointment as Eastern Army Commander.
The 3 Corps Commander, who can head the army in 2014, was put under a Discipline and Vigilance Ban by Gen V K Singh on charges of "abdicating responsibility" in handling an intelligence and surveillance unit under his command after a failed operation in Assam.
The decision to lift the DV ban on Lt Gen Suhag was taken by the Army Chief and the officer can now be promoted, sources said in New Delhi on Thursday.
The post of Eastern Commander is lying vacant since Gen Bikram Singh took over as the Army Chief. The DV Ban resulted in the holding up the promotion of the officer as Eastern Army Commander. The promotion had been already approved by the Defence Ministry and was being considered by the Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC) for the elevation.
Gen V K Singh had issued a show cause notice to the officer on 19th May and subsequently imposed the DV Ban on him.
Lt Gen Suhag filed his reply on 31st May, the same day Gen V K Singh retired and the new incumbent took over.
Lt Gen Suhag was earlier given only seven days to respond to the notice but was later given ten more days to do so after the Defence Ministry intervened and sought a detailed reply form the Army Headquarters about the entire episode.
Army Chief overturns Gen V K Singh's decision
Comment:
This makes it clear that Lt Gen Suhag has been cleared of any serious lapse in the matter after reportedly facing allegations of abdication of responsibility with regard to the alleged failed operation. In fact, when Gen VK Singh had ordered the DV ban recently, it had stalled his promotion to the post of General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Command. It sounds like the MOD, MHA amd PMO succession plan has taken the right route. We are once again reminded of Nidhi's... refrain "We must look at the bigger picture". This spat between Senior Officers, Arms lobbyists and Politicians will linger on for a long time. With 2014 Elections looming large the Arms Lobbyists are positioning their loyalists for the Big Loot- in the name of Modernisation- the Laundered money goes down the drain as election expenses for the dubious Politicians to get elected again and again and loot repeatedly!

Panel Discussion on Gen VK Singh's Tenure

The link for the Panel Discussion on 30 May, 2012 is under:
Is Gen VK Singh a Crusader? Click here for the Video
If you have the time and have not seen it, do see and listen.
Comment
Gen Vijay Oberoi and Brig V Mahalingham tried to put up the Military in the right perspective. Whereas Gen Raj Kadyan and Shankar Prasad tried to beat about the bush and overly tried to please the Panel Anchor and the Directors of NDTV- who are dependent on arms lobbyists to pump in a lot of money to the media by way of ads and sponsorships.
Must read articles by Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi New Chief Takes Over: Click here

New Chief and the Challenges

Saturday, May 26, 2012
Of Matters Military: New Chief and the Challenges
by Major General Mrinal Suman
Human memory may be short but institutional memory is eternal and highly sensitive to all issues that affect its health and standing. Therefore, institutional history is most unforgiving and never condones any act of transgression that brings disrepute to its character. Indian army as an institution is proud of its non-partisan disposition and well-evolved merit-based promotion system.
Devious tweaking of the system by a parochial Chief to ensure elevation of his protégé will always be remembered as a black episode in the history of the Indian army. In a hierarchy based organisation like the army, such transgressions have a complex cascading effect – the complete line of succession for higher ranks has been distorted. Many deserving officers have got left out.
End of May 2012 will see a change of guard at the apex of the Indian army. Assumption of the appointment by the Chief-designate will mark the triumph of parochialism over justice. Therefore, he will have to carry the burden of an acute guilt-complex. He knows that the environment is aware of the manipulations that facilitated his rise – the current incumbent has been deceitfully deprived of his full tenure and the careers of many brilliant officers who could have posed a challenge to his advancement were ruthlessly ruined.
To be trusted is the greatest compliment that a leader can earn. It flourishes on the credibility that a leader enjoys in his command. On the other hand, partisanship is an impropriety of the worst kind and erodes credibility of leaders and undermines their standing in the eyes of the led. Being a beneficiary of partisan dispensation, the new Chief will have to work hard to prove his impartial credentials. One wonders as to how he would muster moral courage to exhort troops to trust the organisation and have faith in the justness of the system. For a military leader, it is the most unenviable situation to be in.
Additionally, the new incumbent will be hard pressed to put up with many disconcerting situations. How will he face the outgoing Chief to accept the baton? Similarly, having usurped the appointment that should have rightfully gone to the Northern Army Commander, it will be tough for him to interact with him.
The present Chief will be going out on a moral high. Despite a massive slander campaign launched by the purchased media and some inimical elements, his reputation as an incorruptible leader and a professionally upright commander remains intact. Having faced the wrath of a corrupt, manipulated and prejudiced environment, he will be long remembered for his attempts at cleansing the system. The new Chief will have to contend with his predecessor’s unblemished reputation and live up to it.
Two serious cases are pending finalisation. A writ petition is pending in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court seeking an enquiry into his alleged involvement in a fake encounter that resulted in the death of an innocent person. He is also being accused of command failure during his tenure with the UN peacekeeping force in Congo and a court of enquiry is in progress. Conviction under either of the cases will make his position untenable.
Finally, one wonders if it has ever crossed the mind of the Chief-designate that it would have been far more honorable to retire as an upright Army Commander than to become the Chief through questionable means. History will never forget the conspiracy and the subterfuge that facilitated his elevation – turning the national motto ‘Satyamev Jayate’ on its head. It should never be forgotten that when history judges key players in retrospect, it is always unsparing and ruthless in exposing their misdemeanors.
New Chief and the Challenges
Major General Mrinal Suman
A highly qualified and experienced officer, General Suman commanded an Engineer Regiment in the Siachen Glacier area and was awarded the gold medal for being ‘the most outstanding engineer of the year’. He was the Task Force Commander at Pokharan and was responsible for designing and sinking shafts for the nuclear tests, for which he was duly honoured by the President of India. He superannuated in 2003. He heads Defence Technical Assessment and Advisory Service of CII and has also been directing their much acclaimed Defence Acquisition Management Courses, both in India and abroad. Being the first Technical Manager [Land Systems], he was closely associated with the evolution of the new defence procurement mechanism. Today, he is considered to be India’s foremost expert on myriad aspects of India’s defence procurement regime and offsets. He is a prolific writer and his articles are regularly published in a large number of journals. He is regularly invited to address various chambers, industrial delegations and seminars in India and abroad. He is often consulted by the policy makers. His views are also sought by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence.

Government deserves a spineless Chief for corrupt weapon deals

India | Posted on May 24, 2012 at 11:39am IST No farewell speeches for Army Chief Gen VK Singh at Antony's dinner New Delhi: Defence Minister AK Antony's dinner for outgoing Army Chief Gen VK Singh on Wednesday night was marked by bonhomie but there were no farewell speeches.

No speeches were made at the farewell dinner for Gen Singh and his wife Bharati Singh hosted by Antony and his wife Elizabeth, sources said on Thursday, adding it was unusual as generally officials present say a few lines about the outgoing Service chiefs at farewell functions. The Army chief, who retires on May 31, has been involved in a tussle with the Defence Ministry over several issues including the row over his date of birth.
Defence Ministry spokesperson Sitanshu Kar said there was "bonhomie" at the dinner where the Defence Minister and his wife played perfect hosts at the Army Battle Honours Mess. Antony gifted a silver bowl to the outgoing chief as a memento.
National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon, Defence Secretary Shashikant Sharma, Director General Acquisition Vivek Rae, IDS Chief Vice Admiral Shekhar Sinha and Navy Chief Admiral Nirmal Verma were present on the occasion.
Gen Singh's last major function would be the National Defence Academy passing out parade on May 30 in Khadakvasla near Pune.
He will hand over the reins of the Army to Lt Gen Bikram Singh on May 31 afternoon.
No farewell speeches for Army Chief Gen VK Singh at Antony's dinner
Comment: Price for Professionalism and Patriotism. The Military needs leaders who are loyal to the troops and serve the Nation and free from corrupt practices.

Lt General Dalbir Singh Suhag cons SFF

New Delhi: The Army Chief, already in a full-blown battle with the government, appears to have further aggravated the situation by asking the CBI to investigate corruption charges against a serving General, one who is second in line to replace him when he retires at the end of May.
General VK Singh wrote to the CBI, asking for an inquiry into allegations by a Member of Parliament from Bengal against Lt General Dalbir Singh Suhag. The MP, Ambika Banerjee of the Trinamool Congress, had written nearly 10 months ago to General Singh, alleging corruption in the purchase of defence equipment on Lt General Suhag's watch when he (then a Major General) was in charge of the Special Frontier Force in Chakrata near Nanital. The Lt General is currently the head of the 3 Corps in Dimapur, Nagaland.
Army Chief asks for CBI inquiry against serving General
Factional feud rages again, Gen VK Singh issues show-cause notice to Lt Gen Suhag
SFF is under MHA
The Special Frontier Force (SFF) is a paramilitary unit of India. It was conceived in the post Sino-Indian war period as a guerrilla force composed mainly of Tibetan refugees whose main goal was to conduct covert operations behind Chinese lines in case of another war between the People's Republic of China and India. Based in Chakrata, Uttarakhand, SFF is also known as the Establishment 22. The force was put under the direct supervision of the Intelligence Bureau, and later, the Research and Analysis Wing, India's external intelligence agency. SFF right now of course it is under the MHA like NSG, SSB, CISF etc.
Under PC's spell and pandora box... corruption and money laundering is the game for purchase of equipment for the PMF's. His family member does all the arms shopping in East European Countries clandestinely of course... his travel manifests will tell the tale...

Communal Twist to the Appointment of Army Chief?

With no prejudice
M.G. Devasahayam : Indian Express Sat May 19 2012, 03:36 hrs
‘Four out of the seven petitioners are from Tamil Nadu and have nothing to do with the communal conundrums of North India. And so the mud will not stick’
Shekhar Gupta’s article on the “communal twist” in the PIL filed in the Supreme Court by seven “prominent citizens” (‘With prejudice’, National Interest, IE, April 28) is far from the truth and is unfortunate. I, being one of the petitioners, owe an explanation as to the facts to put the record straight.
In this context some paragraphs from the writ petition have been quoted. These passages are mere narrations of events that were neither rebutted by the government through any counter-affidavit nor during “preliminary” arguments by the Attorney General or Solicitor General in the Supreme Court. Nowhere in the entire petition is there any “communal twist” except mentioning some names in connection with the events narrated. The petitioner’s counsel did not even raise this issue during her arguments.
Tweaking the words “orders from above” the article insinuates that “above” meant Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and he is portrayed as communal. Nothing can be more absurd. My acquaintance with Manmohan Singh dates back to the mid-1970s, when I was administrator of Chandigarh and I know him rather well to even remotely suggest that he is communal! By the way, is the PM the only person “above” Defence Minister A.K.Antony?
One wonders as to why Operation Bluestar, that had no relationship with the issues raised in the PIL, has been given such a long narration. Nevertheless, this being a sensitive matter I would share some of my own information and that obtained from sources that were part of the operation. The fact is that Operation Bluestar was neither led by the then Major General K.S. Brar nor Lt Gen R.S. Dyal. The “strike force” was a bizarre khichadi comprising of two infantry battalions (26 Madras and 10 Guards) under a nominated brigade commander (D.V. Rao) of the Madras Regiment. There were no Sikh troops in this strike force.
In total contravention of the army’s operational ethics, these battalions were taken out of their command set up and put under Brigadier Rao as an ad hoc arrangement. Major General Brar’s role was just that 10 Guards was part of 9 Inf Div of which he was GOC. What is worse, Lt Gen K. Sundarji as army commander, Western Command, took direct control of the operation by-passing the Jalandhar-based 11th Corps commanded by Lt Gen Gowri Shankar. Such blatant cannibalisation of the fighting forces and the general officer’s keenness to please Prime Minister Indira Gandhi led to utter chaos and unacceptably huge carnage and extensive damage to the sacred Amritsar Golden Temple.
Be that as it may, let us see the core reasons that prompted the petitioners to knock at the door of the Supreme Court. To start with, it was the defence ministry’s manipulations to cut short the tenure of General V.K. Singh and the premature announcement of Lt Gen Bikram Singh as the next army chief without finally resolving the date of birth issue of the former. Documents in the MS Branch prove that selection boards for the promotion of V.K. Singh to the select ranks of Brigadier (September 1996) Major General (October 25 2001 and September 18/19 2003) and Lieutenant General (September 30 2005) reflect his DoB as May 10, 1951. But ignoring all these, the issue was raked up by former COAS General J.J. Singh with an ulterior motive to cut short the present army chief’s tenure.
In its order dated February 10 2012, the Supreme Court had neither endorsed the entry in the UPSC application form (May 10 1950), nor upheld the so-called “commitment” given by V.K. Singh regarding his DoB. Also, contrary to wide publicity, the court had taken no position on the general’s DoB and left it to the “Union of India” to recognise one of the two DoBs (1950 or 1951). It had also allowed the government to withdraw the operative part (merits) of its December 30, 2011, order in which it had rejected Gen V.K. Singh’s statutory complaint seeking recognition of 1951 as his year of birth. With the merit part withdrawn, the original statutory complaint stands revived. MoD since then had not passed any legally speaking order recognising the actual DoB of General V.K. Singh before announcing his successor.
The next issue was J.J. Singh’s plan to eliminate others from amongst Lt Gen Bikram’s contemporaries from the race. The main target was Brigadier Ravi Arora, gold medalist, senior in IC number but younger in age to Bikram Singh. This has been explained in detail in the PIL. More important grounds were the grave allegations pending against the army chief designate. One is his alleged involvement in the fake-encounter death of a 70-year-old man, and thereafter branding him as a terrorist to achieve personal advantages, and this matter pending in writ petition in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court seeking a commission of inquiry. The second case related to events in the Congo Republic when in 2007-08 then Major General Bikram Singh was the Eastern Division Commander of the UN peacekeeping force. Indian troops under his command had been accused of mass sexual abuse. Sixty-eight cases, including the siring of illicit children, had been reported, and the matter is being investigated by a court of inquiry at Meerut. When P.J. Thomas was appointed as Central Vigilance Commissioner, and the Centre for Public Litigation challenged it, a division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia and Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar declared the CVC as India’s “integrity institution” and not only struck down the appointment but had castigated the government for its lack of respect for institutional integrity. Thomas had just one corruption case against him for which an application to seek his prosecution was pending.
The primary responsibility of the Indian Army is to preserve national interests and safeguard the sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of India against any external threat by deterrence or by waging war. In the event our army is as important an “integrity institution” as the Central Vigilance Commission, if not more.
The petitioners therefore contended that as there were two serious cases pending against Lt Gen Bikram Singh, it will not be prudent to appoint him as the next COAS. Drawing a parallel with the P.J. Thomas case, where the Supreme Court had overturned his appointment on the grounds that at the time of approval by the ACC an application was pending to prosecute the officer, the plea in the PIL was for applying the same yardstick in the matter of the appointment of the next COAS. Individuals and names mentioned in the PIL were only incidental.
The petitioners had hoped that the apex court will reiterate the well-reasoned verdict of its own larger bench and uphold the institutional integrity of the Army that is being ravaged by a well entrenched coterie. Instead our petition was summarily disposed off with these crisp words: “We have carefully gone through the averments made in the writ petition, the materials placed on record by the petitioners and the original file concerning appointment of the next Chief of Army Staff. We do not find any justifiable ground to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is clarified that dismissal of writ petition shall not affect the legal proceeding or matter pending in the court or any other forum.”
The dismissal is based on a clearance report given by the Intelligence Bureau. One wonders whether IB has jurisdiction to give such clearance on matters pending before a high court and a court of inquiry, particularly so when the Supreme Court has allowed these proceedings to continue. It is in this context that the perilous implication of the court order needs to be understood. These twin “Swords of Damocles” hanging over the head of the army chief severely compromise the institutional integrity of the army. Is this what our valiant army deserves? All that the petitioners wanted to do was to avoid such horrid embarrassment and restore the integrity of the institution. For this “communal” charges are being hurled at us.
As to this “communal mudslinging” it will be pertinent to point out that four out of the seven petitioners — Admiral Ramdas, N. Gopalaswamy, Sam Rajappa and myself — are from Tamil Nadu and have nothing to do with the communal conundrums of North India. And so the mud will not stick. We have done what we have to do with pride and without any prejudice.
The writer is a former bureaucrat
With no prejudice

Army chief hints at one-rank-one-pension

 Scheme to cost Rs 3,000 cr, but is less from the point of soldiers' welfare, says Gen V K Singh 
Press Trust of India / Ballia Apr 23, 2012, 14:48 IST
Chief of Army Staff General V K Singh today hinted at implementation of one-rank-one-pension and said all information regarding ex-army men would be collected and their problems would be sorted out.
Addressing a conference of ex-army men Gen Singh said that all efforts were being made to implement one-rank-one-pension from the last two years.
Stating efforts were also being made to remove disparity in the family pension scheme, the COAS said it may take time, but there would certainly be one or the other good outcome.
Implementation of the one-rank-one-pension scheme would involve an expenditure of Rs 3,000 crore, but it was less from the point of the welfare of the soldiers, Singh said.
He was here to unveil the statue of former Prime Minister Chadrashekhar at Devsthali.
Assuring soldiers after becoming pensioners they would not be forgotten, the General said both unit and headquarters have been directed to speedily redress pension related and other complaints of ex-army men.mHe said that all details of ex-army men, including that of their families, were being gathered and they would include whether any family member of an ex-army man was aggrieved and what his problem was.
Though the media was kept away from his programme some reporters managed to enter the venue and enquired Gen Singh whether he would hand over documents related to the bribery case to the CBI.
Gen Singh refused to comment and said that media should gather information from the CBI in this regard.
At a public function later, Singh emphasised on setting up of better educational institutions in rural areas and said they should focus on all round development of students.
"It is the responsibility of the younger generation to take the country forward," he added.
Chandrashekhar's son and MP Neeraj Shekhar and MLC Ravishanker Pappu were also present at the event.
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/army-chief-hints-at-one-rank-one-pension/163496/on

Bikram Singh to be the next Army Chief

Yahoo! India News – Sat 3 Mar, 2012
New Delhi: The government on Saturday named Eastern Army commander Lt Gen Bikram Singh as the next Indian Army Chief.
The announcement comes after months of the row over the date of birth of incumbent Gen VK Singh.
Lt Gen Bikram Singh currently heads the Army's eastern command and will take the top post on May 31 when Gen VK Singh will be retiring from service.
A press release issued by the ministry of defence says:
Lt Gen Bikram Singh will be the next Chief of Army Staff
New Delhi: Phalguna 13, 1933
Friday, March 03, 2012
The Eastern Army Commander, Lt Gen Bikram Singh, PVSM,UYSM,AVSM,SM,VSM,ADC has been designated as the next Chief of Army Staff, in the rank of General, with effect from the afternoon of 31 May 2012. He will succeed the present COAS, General VK Singh, PVSM,AVSM,YSM,ADC, who retires from the service on 31 May 2012.
Lt Gen Bikram Singh was commissioned into the Sikh Light Infantry Regiment on 31 March 1972.
During his long and distinguished career, spanning nearly 40 years, he has served in a variety of Command and Staff appointments. He has commanded a Corps in the Northern Command. The General had served as Deputy Force Command of a multi-nation UN Peace Keeping Mission in Congo. He had also served as UN Observer in Nicaragua and El Salvador during the early 90s.
Lt Gen Bikram Singh has studied with distinction at the Defence Services Staff College, the Army War College and the US Army War College, Pennsylvania. He has also done M.Phil in Defence Management from the Indore University.
He is married to Mrs Surjeet Kaur, housewife and the couple have two sons.
Bikram Singh to be the next Army Chief
Related Reading
Army Chief V. K. Singh congratulates Lt Gen Bikram Singh on succession

Have Peace, not Justice

Dear Sir,
Does the manner in which this case has been dispensed with, imply that the Indian population may lose confidence in the ability of the highest courts of India, to deliver true justice, when it has to do so against an unreasonable and biased Government actions and so called 'vitiated' decisions against high profile, honourable and upright personalities.
Whatever anyone may say, it seems highly doubtful that the Army Chief's integrity and honour has been fully restored by this slap, he has got on his face, to say the least. The Government of India has been very cunning in sending the Chief to London, perhaps as a reward for having withdrawn his petition to save their face.
It shows the Government of India has now developed the ability of playing around with the dates of births of Indians to their convenience and on the merit of each case. This unhealthy precedence may cost dearly to the Government in times to come.
Col LK Anand Retd

Have Peace, not Justice
In what came to be called an ‘unprecedented step’, the Army Chief, Gen VK Singh had gone to the Supreme Court seeking justice against a Government order dated December 30, 2011, which had rejected his statutory complaint seeking resolution of a conflict in his service records that showed two dates of birth – 10 May 1951 as per the records held by the Adjutant General’s Branch (AG) and 10 May 1950 as per the records held by the Military Secretary’s branch (MS) at the Army Headquarters. All legally tenable evidence like birth certificate, school leaving certificate and prior legal advice from three or four former Chief Justices of India pointed only to one date – 10 May 1951 as the correct year of Gen VK Singh’s birth.
In the first hearing on February 3, the apex Court reprimanded the Government for its ‘vitiated decision making process’ which had resulted in rejection of Gen VK Singh’s statutory complaint. Throwing back the Government order of December 30, the honourable judges also offered the Government counsel to either withdraw this order or else they would quash it, as reported in the media. In the second hearing on February 10, even as the Government withdrew its impugned order, the Court surprisingly upheld the same Government decision that had rejected the General’s contention and maintained 1950 as his year of birth. It also ticked him off for reneging on his earlier commitments accepting the date he was now challenging. The General withdrew his petition
Have Peace, not Justice: Click here to read more

A Matter of Honour

Avoidable row over Army Chief’s date of birth
by Lt-Gen Vijay Oberoi (retd)
The Tribune – 10-01-2012
TRUST the government in general and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in particular to disparage the armed forces’ image at the slightest pretext. In the last few years, this seems to have become a norm. The latest is the way a simple issue like the age of Gen V.K. Singh, the current Army Chief, has been made a highly controversial issue. It has been extensively debated in the media for nearly the entire tenure of the Chief, when it could easily have been sorted out as a matter of routine. Now, there is a sudden urgency to the issue as the MoD has peremptorily rejected the plea of the Chief, as requested by him through the medium of a statutory complaint and there is speculation that the Chief may take the issue to the Supreme Court.

A simple case of when a person was born has been unnecessarily dragged into the public gaze because there are vested interests wanting to bring the high office of the Army Chief to such absurd levels where the issue of when the current incumbent was born has become a subject of speculation by the media and various self-appointed analysts, do-gooders and those wanting to please the leadership to meet their personal ends. Some loyalists of the government have even opined that the Chief should resign! Why should he when the MoD, including the person who presides over it, is to blame for this state of affairs? If any resignation is needed, it should be the persons who have brought this simple issue to this sorry impasse!

The facts are simple and straightforward. There is ample documentary evidence that General Singh, the current Army Chief, was born on May 10, 1951. This includes his birth certificate issued by a military hospital; the date in his school leaving certificate; the date in the records of the UPSC; the records of the military academies from where he passed out — the NDA and the IMA — the records maintained by the personnel branch of the Army, Adjutant-General’s (AG’s) Branch; the records with the battalion to which he reported on commissioning; personal record entries in the numerous annual confidential reports (ACR’s) initiated every year and many more documents.

However, the MoD, for reasons best known to it, persists in ignoring all this evidence and thrusting a date one year earlier — May 10, 1950 — as the date of the birth of the Army Chief. Why? Many have commented that this is being done because the powers that be are more concerned with who the next Chief should be in their reckoning and not the facts of the case. This consistent, albeit moronic, stance of the MoD is not only wrong but is also designed to denigrate the image of the General and show him as a self-seeking individual who wants to remain in office for a few months more!

In this perverted milieu, neither the political leadership nor the bureaucrats of the MoD seem to be concerned with the highly adverse repercussions this whole episode is having on the honour, morale and wellbeing of an institution that continues to be the only one in the country that enjoys the continuing respect and confidence of the populace. It is also the only institution that is the ultimate guarantor of the security of the nation. Consequently, its honour and image need to be preserved at all costs, lest the country suffers on account of acts of omission and commission by a few individuals who seem to be more concerned about their personal interests and not the interests of the nation.

The question of the present Chief’s successor should never have been part of the correctness or otherwise of the case — the date of birth — as it is extraneous to the issue under consideration. The rules relating to the selection of a new Chief are very clear. A panel is drawn up of the four or five seniormost Army commanders or equivalent and the government then selects one. Of course, in the past, the government has been selecting the seniormost Army commander, but that is because the government chooses to adopt the easy and non-controversial option of seniority and not the one of merit, although in the past there have been at least two cases where the seniormost was not selected. Be that as it may, it should never have been the reason for ignoring the mass of documentary evidence that confirms the Chief’s date of birth as May 10, 1951. The government can, in any case, select whoever it wants as the next Chief from the panel. If there is a fear that the seniormost will then retire in the normal course, even this can be pre-empted by giving him an extension as was done in the case of General Bewoor a few decades back.

Many right-thinking persons in the country are wondering why the MoD has created this unseemly controversy when the documentary evidence is clear and incontrovertible. Having served for over 40 years in the Army and having held many appointments at Army Headquarters where dealing with the MoD was a frequent affair, I can venture to outline a few reasons. The foremost is that the MoD and, indeed, the hierarchy of the government want either pliable officers or yes-men to head the services or those who can be pressurised to do their bidding on account of extraneous reasons. Any elaboration is neither needed nor desirable.

An independent-thinking chief of a service, who is likely to take a firm stand when he disagrees with what the government wants, as in his military perception it will harm the military and/or the nation, is a big “no-no” for them. At the heart of such thinking are three aspects.

Firstly, the government has psyched itself to think that there is an ever-present danger of the military, especially the Army, as has happened in many neighbouring and Third World countries. This is despite the fact that no chief or any other officer of any service at any time since our Independence has shown even an inkling of such thinking. Such irrational thinking on the part of the government is not based on any facts or indicators, except the fear in the minds of the political leadership, which is periodically stoked by their so-called advisers for their own personal and obviously limited ends.

Secondly, the hierarchy is happy with the status quo and has little time for a dynamic person who points out faults/inconsistencies and, in bureaucratic parlance, “rocks the boat”! While many civilian officials demonstrate their loyalty by being yes-men/women, irrespective of the merits of each issue, as long as their own backs are covered and personal requirements, dubious or otherwise, are met, the training and make-up of military personnel preclude them from acting in this manner. On a number of issues the present Chief has asserted his independent views and hence the hierarchy perhaps feels that the sooner he disappears from the scene, the better for them! They seem to be least concerned with what is correct, what is legal and what is good for the nation and the Army.

Thirdly, such a hiatus is in consonance with the past actions of the government, where downgrading the military at every opportunity has now become a norm. This is apparently sought to be justified as strengthening “civil control”, but actually the concept seems to be least understood by our political leadership, irrespective of the party affiliations of the government in power at any particular time.

Despite the technicalities advanced by the government, it is obvious that there has been little application of mind on this issue. This happens when bureaucratese supplants thinking and common sense! It is still not too late for the MoD to make amends so that faith in the correctness of the system is restored, at least to some degree.
The writer is a former Vice-Chief of Army Staff.
A Matter of Honour

Army chief race turns murky as allegations fly

Army chief in waiting - Lt Gen Bikram Singh



Army chief race turns murky as allegations fly
Josy Joseph, TNN Jan 11, 2012, 04.15AM IST
Lt Gen Bikram Singh is likely to become the Chief of Army Staff after Gen VK Singh retires because he is the senior-most officer in the Indian Army and the government rarely deviates from the seniority principle in deciding the Army chief.
NEW DELHI: Just when the controversy over the age of Army chief Gen V K Singh is beginning to die down, a set of allegations have cropped up against his likely successor Lt Gen Bikram Singh, making the issue of who should head the world's second largest standing army a murky affair.

Most serious of the complaints against Lt Gen Bikram Singh is a decade-old, and concerns an encounter in Kashmir on March 1, 2001. Lt Gen Bikram Singh, then a brigadier heading counter-insurgency operations in the area, was injured and a colonel killed. A local NGO 'Youth Empowerment Services of Kashmir' has been petitioning various authorities in Delhi and in Kashmir countering Army's claim that the operation resulted in the killing of a foreign militant named Mateen Chacha.

The group has alleged that the deceased was actually a 70-year-old local named Abdullah Bhat, a resident of Machil, Kupwara, who was shown as a foreign militant. The NGO has not dropped its campaign despite the clean chit to Lt Gen Bikram Singh from the local police.

In what may appear to be part of a chain, an MP has also written to the prime minister questioning Lt Gen Bikram Singh's suitability to lead the Army on the ground that his daughter in-law is from Pakistan. The intelligence establishment, approached by the PMO, gave an all-clear to Lt General Bikram Singh but this has not spelt respite for him.

There are also anonymous complaints doing the rounds about Lt Gen Bikram Singh's posting in African on a UN peacekeeping mission, and failure to contain disciplinary breaches by some Indian Army soldiers. Some members of an Indian Army battalion are accused of fathering children, by illegal sexual contacts with local women, while they were posted in Africa.

There are three possible scenarios that heighten concerns within the government about the succession battle. One, if Gen V K Singh retires as per the government records, then Lt Gen Bikram Singh could be announced as the next chief by March 31. If Gen VK Singh were to continue until 2013, then Lt Gen KT Parnaik, who is heading the Northern Army Command, would be the senior-most officer in line.

In case Gen VK Singh resigns abruptly in the coming weeks, before the government announces Lt Gen Bikram Singh as the new chief, then there could a further twist to the succession battle. Given the complexities of the scenario, government sources said they were warily watching allegations being flung around.
Army chief race turns murky as allegations fly

Comment: The Indian Army Chief to succeed Gen VK Singh should be above board. The succession plan plotted by Bureaucrats should be examined, shelved and mischief makers brought to book.

Army Chief's age: Personal matter or conspiracy?

30 Jan 2012
RSN Singh is a former military intelligence officer who later served in the Research and Analysis Wing, or R&AW. The author of two books: Asian Strategic and Military Perspective and Military Factor in Pakistan, he is also Associate Editor, Indian Defence Review. He analyses Army Chief's age: Personal matter or conspiracy?
The controversy over the army chief's date of birth (D.O.B.) is bizarre and probably symptomatic of the degradation of value systems at the higher echelons of the army. It is definitely not a sudden development.

Officers of the rank of lieutenant general have gone to the civil courts on matters relating to promotions in the past. The only institution which had no need to do so was that of the army chief, because that was the end of the hierarchy and the ladder. But then there was the allure of post-retirement sinecure and many army chiefs were perceived to be bending backwards for it.

Eventually, by a seemingly capillary action, the malaise crept right to the top. The system had acquired such a culture of sleaze and conspiracy over the years that there was an attempt to even manipulate the duration and succession chain of the institution.

Gen VK Singh's decision to go to the Supreme Court is a manifestation of this. The case otherwise was so simple – or such a non-issue- that its resolution was more a matter of common sense than judicial intervention.

The case arose from a difference in the records of the Military Secretary's Branch and the Adjutant General's (AG's) Branch of the army. The latter is the usual record-keeper.

In Gen Singh's case, the ministry of defence decided that it will go by the Military Secretary's records – when common sense should have told it to do otherwise. In fact, the MoD has done so in at least one earlier case.

In a strikingly similar case, one Col Ramesh Chander Joshi (IC-16142) received his orders for retirement from the MS Branch (vide Letter No. 30004/Sep 96/Tech/MS Retirement w.e.f. 30 September 1996) based on the fact that his date of birth was listed as 22 September 1944.

However, the records with the Adjutant General's branch clearly indicated his date of birth as 25 November 1945. The officer communicated this anomaly to the MS Branch. In the absence of reply, on the last day of his retirement, i.e. 30 September 1996, the officer had no option but to send a signal directly to the army chief.

Promptly, on the same day, the officer received a message "This HQ letter No 30004/Sep/96/Tech/MS Retirement of 13 Sep 1996 regarding retirement of IC 16142 Col Ramesh Chander Joshi Engrs of E-in-c's Branch Army Hq w.e.f. from 30 Sep 96 is hereby cancelled. The claimed date of birth as 25 Nov 45 has been accepted by ministry of defence (MoD). Officer will continue in service till further orders."

As in the case of Gen Singh, the date of birth column in the UPSC form in respect of Col Joshi had been incorrectly filled and was corrected by the UPSC first and subsequently by the National Defence Academy (NDA) once his Senior Cambridge certificate arrived.

Col Joshi wonders: "If it has happened in my case why not in the case of Gen VK Singh?"

Most army officers are bewildered and question: where is the scope for controversy?

Various military secretaries who had dealt with the case, in keeping with their moral imperative, could have ‘corrected' their records within a matter of hours.

A simple acknowledgement of the mistake could have done much to establish fairplay, judgment and credibility on the part of the Military Secretary Branch. This acknowledgement would otherwise have made no difference to the date of birth of Gen Singh, as the Army List has no legal sanctity. An acknowledgement or acceptance of mistake was desired because it was repeated over more than 36 years. Every year, at the time of the general's Annual Confidential Records, his date of birth was mentioned as 10 May 1951.

There are scores of such cases in the Army List, wherein the date of birth, or IC number or name is wrongly entered. People have retired as lieutenant generals with wrong IC numbers in the Army List. If these military secretaries were 'men of honour' they should have accepted their 'omissions' and tried to clean up the functioning of the MS Branch.

The buzz among army insiders is that these gentlemen entered into a conspiracy with at least two army chiefs and subsequent powers that be in inflicting their mistake or omission (of not correcting the army chief's d.o.b.) and blackmailing Gen Singh by using the inaccurate and inconsequential document called the 'Army List' as tool.

Some 90 percent officers in the army retire without seeing the Army List. There is a popular saying in the army that only crooks and careerists see the Army List.

Ministry of Defence issues illegal directive to AG's Branch

Army chief vs Government: Five new developments
Nitin Gokhale, Sudhi Ranjan Sen, Updated: January 30, 2012 12:12 IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court is likely to hear the army chief's case against the government on February 4. General VK Singh has become the first serving Army chief to take the government to court - he wants the court to decide how old he is. Here are five big facts about the case:

1. What's the problem? General VK Singh says he was born on May 10, 1951; the government says it has to go by documents that list his date of birth as May 10, 1950. General Singh's records within the army show both dates. The General says he has tried several times to have the date corrected. But his requests were turned down. In December, the Defence Ministry ruled against him.

2. What's the big new development? Ahead of the Supreme Court hearing, the government has instructed the army to correct all its records to uniformly reflect 1950 as General Singh's year of birth. The army's official record-keeper is the Adjutant-General. The Ministry of Defence says that after General Singh's appeals were rejected, the army is obliged to amend its documents.

3. So far, the Adjutant-General has not implemented the government's order. Sources say that the administrators in this branch say records cannot be changed even by an executive order - and officials want to be sure that the government's instructions are legally valid. The Adjutant-General, sources say, may try to buy time till the Supreme Court hearing to gauge what judges make of the government's stand. So they may tell the Ministry of Defence that changing every single record for the army chief is a process that could take several days.

4. Is that a valid point? Yes, say experts, who point out that the government's instruction to the Army mean that all confidential records for General Singh, his pay book, driving license, passport and other documents will have to be amended.

5. Is this about his tenure? General Singh has said he wants to protect his honour and integrity - basically, have the government accept his claim, so it's clear that he did not try to misrepresent the facts. He also says that his battle is not about when he should retire. In his petition to the Supreme Court, he has said that he accepts that deciding his term is the sole prerogative of the government. But if the court were to accept 1951 as his date of birth, he would be eligible for another year as the head of the Army.
Read more at: Army chief vs Government: Five new developments

The government has no authority to change anyone’s age– the court will decide that– the only authority it has is to ask the general to go on leave while the matter is being decided. However, there is something more to it: why is a government so keen to get rid of one of its cleanest generals? In the answer to this question lies the reason for the age row. It is ultimately unlikely to be about the general’s age. Someone up there in government is worried about what the general stands for.
The govt can ask Gen VK Singh to go, but it can’t change his age

Brigadier V Mahalingam (Retd)writes...
No one has so far clarified as to how the Chief going to the Court is not good for the Army. Are they suggesting that the bureaucracy would block all legitimate cases of procurement and modernization? If that be the case, so be it. Indian Army is not the Indian Army’s Army. It is India’s Army and it if for the people to decide what the country needs in terms of defence needs. The bureaucrats are no one to stand in-between the people and national interests. If the bureaucrats decide to field an ill- equipped Army against an adversary and if lives and territory are lost, those concerned will be made to pay a very heavy price by the people.

Comment: Is AG Branch the legal entity to change date of birth in the Passport, Driving License, Indentity card, PAN, Birth Register, Matric Certificate and other confidential documents of Gen VK Singh. MOD bureaucrats instead of rendering service to the citizens are wholly confused between Power and Authority. Power is to be used for elimination of social evils and corruption and Authority to be used for rendering service to citizens and Nation at large. Right now they are using both to mislead the Nation.

The General and the labyrinth

The Hindu January 18, 2012
The controversy over the age of General V.K. Singh, the subject of an already heated and often unseemly public debate, is now threatening to get out of hand. With the Army Chief left with no resort but to challenge the Defence Ministry in the Supreme Court in order to “protect his integrity and honour,” the issue has the makings of an unseemly civilian-military confrontation that could easily have been avoided had plain common sense prevailed over bureaucratic thick-headedness. There are a slew of documents — including a birth certificate and a school-leaving certificate — that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that General Singh, whose father as well as grandfather were Army officers, was born on May 10, 1951. This is the date of birth recorded in the office of the Adjutant General, the Army's official record-keeper. The controversy has arisen because the Military Secretary — another wing of Army Headquarters that maintains personal records relating to postings, transfers, and promotions — records him as having been born on May 10, 1950. General Singh has been at pains to explain that the latter date, gleaned from an application form for entrance to the National Defence Academy when he was only 14 years old, was a mistake committed by a teacher of his. He has also revealed that the discrepancy was raised with two predecessor Army Chiefs — but, strangely and for reasons the Defence Ministry has not yet disclosed, to no avail.

A brave and highly decorated officer, General Singh is recognised as a brilliant strategist and a reform-minded leader who is tough on corruption, as reflected in the hard line he adopted against erring officers in the Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society scam. The mudslinging and insinuations intended to portray him as someone fiddling with his birth date to hang on to the power and privileges of high office must be rejected with contempt. One major reason why his year of birth has become such a hot potato is that the date of his retirement will have a bearing on who will succeed him as Army Chief. By refusing to accede to General Singh's request to correct the official record on the basis of documented fact, the Defence Ministry has shown astonishing short-sightedness, and in the process tread on a proud soldier's sense of honour. Even now, rather than fight for a bad cause in the highest court in the land, a disputation that could have a bearing on the Army's morale, the government should backtrack and come up with a constructive solution. By conceding General Singh's just case and treating him with the respect and honour that are his due, it should be able to clear the decks for a smooth succession to the post he occupies.
The General and the labyrinth

Records to be reconciled?
Army chief age row: Government wants records reconciled

Age row: Former Army chief backs Gen VK Singh

Todays notable comments
Vasant Datar (Nashik)
38 mins ago (09:53 AM)
It is very unfortunate that 'Babus' control every aspect of Indian machinery. It is disgusting that they - together with politicians extract so much for themselves; while leaving Army insulted! We should not forget that we are one nation even now, not because of 'Babus' or politicians; but because of gallant Army. But for politicians, we could have resolved problems posed by notorious neighbors after 1965 and 1971 wars.

sk (Oman)
1 hr ago (09:26 AM)
I really appreciate former Army chief Gen Shankar Roychoudhary for supporting present Chief. How can an honest Army chief be humilated by Govt. to fulfill their Bofors like motif, for which Mr Singh could be a hurdle. Our Govt. has crossed all th limits of SHAME. Earlier humiliated Anna for raising voice against corruption. Now they are putting nation & country's security at risk, by making a issue public & exposing Army to China, Pakistan & other countries.

ND (I-ND-IA)
51 mins ago (09:40 AM)
in india - THE GOVERNMENT DECIDES THE GENERAL'S AGE. in pakistan - THE GENERAL DECIDES THE GOVERNMENT'S AGE.

agni (mumbai)
38 mins ago (09:53 AM)
--Legally: 1) It is a case between an employee and his employer. Law treats everybody equally. To hell with those who feel special consideration should be given to the General. A General and Sepoy are just individuals in the eyes of the law. 2) Parties to the case cannot reach an agreement on age. Birth is an event with a date. The most reliable sources will be treated as proof of age. You can't have and agreement on dates of delivery! Any such agreement is stupid and invalid--. Nincompoops in the ministry of defence should be thrown out to ensure that such controversies do not take place in future. I believe the SC will decide the date to be 1951. It will affect promotions of 4 levels of officers currently in service (acc. to a TV show), if the General decides to continue till 2013. Law is not concerned with this particular issue of 'levels'.
Age row: Former Army chief backs Gen VK Singh